Mr L Harris and others v Provence Leisure Ltd and others: 2307903/2020 and others
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS
Case No 2307903/2020
Between
Mr L Harris and othersClaimantProvence Leisure Ltd and othersRespondent
Before
Employment Judge HartNot represented for respondentDate 16 September 2022
JUDGMENT
[1]The claims submitted by Mr Harris (first claimant), Mrs Mann (second claimant) and Mrs Merritt (third claimant) be joined, since they arise out of the same facts and law.[2]The employer of all three claimants was Richmont Hotels Limited (third respondent) jointly and severally with Mr van Hoogstraten (fifth respondent) .[3]The claims against Provence Leisure Limited (first respondent), Messina Properties Limited (second respondent), Arco Hotels Limited (fourth respondent) and Mr R Hamilton (sixth respondent) are dismissed.[4]The default judgment made on 1 July 2021 in favour of Mr Harris (first claimant) against Provence Leisure Limited (first respondent) and Messina Properties Limited (second respondent) be set aside.[5]The claimants were dismissed by reason of redundancy.[6]Mr Harris’ claim for statutory redundancy pay succeeds and Richmont Hotels Limited (third respondent) and Mr van Hoogstraten (fifth respondent) are ordered to pay £6600 (gross).[7]Mr Harris’ claim for outstanding 8 weeks’ notice pay succeeds and Richmont Hotels Limited (third respondent) and Mr van Hoogstraten (fifth respondent) are ordered to pay £2562.08 (net).[8]Mr Harris’ claim for 15 days accrued holiday pay succeeds and Richmont Hotels Limited (third respondent) and Mr van Hoogstraten (fifth respondent) are ordered to pay £960.78 (net).[9]Ms Mann’s claim for statutory redundancy pay succeeds and Richmont Hotels Limited (third respondent) and Mr van Hoogstraten (fifth respondent) are ordered to pay statutory redundancy pay of £2284.65 (gross).[10]Ms Mann’s claim for outstanding 8 weeks’ notice pay succeeds and Richmont Hotels Limited (third respondent) and Mr van Hoogstraten (fifth respondent) are ordered to pay £3197.60 (net).[11]Ms Mann’s claim for 15 days accrued holiday pay succeeds and Richmont Hotels Limited (third respondent) and Mr van Hoogstraten (fifth respondent) are ordered to pay £1199.10 (net).[12]Ms Merritt’s claim for statutory redundancy pay succeeds and Richmont Hotels Limited (third respondent) and Mr van Hoogstraten (fifth respondent) are ordered to pay pay of £9679.20 (gross).[13]Ms Merritt’s claim for outstanding 8 weeks’ notice pay succeeds and Richmont Hotels Limited (third respondent) and Mr van Hoogstraten (fifth respondent) are ordered to pay £2451.92 (net).[14]Ms Merritt’s claim for 15 days accrued holiday pay succeeds and Richmont Hotels Limited (third respondent) and Mr van Hoogstraten (fifth respondent) are ordered to pay £919.50 (net).
REASONS
[1]The claimants claims arise out of the closure of “The Shelleys” hotel in Lewes. East Sussex. At all material times, either Mr N van Hoogstraten personally, and / or companies connected to him, owned and managed the hotel.[2]The tribunal notes that Mr N van Hoogstraten is reported to have changed his name to Mr N A von Hessen. The tribunal has not had sight of any legal documentation to confirm this name change. He is also known as Mr von Hoogstraten. For the avoidance of doubt, this judgment covers all variations of Mr N van Hoogstraten’s name and all name changes.
The hearing
[3]Mr Harris (first claimant) attended and was represented by Mr Welch, his stepfather. Ms Mann (second claimant) and Ms Merritt (third claimant) attended and represented themselves. None of the respondents attended the hearing nor were they represented. Proceedings prior to the hearing[4]On 1 December 2020 Mr Harris submitted a claim against Provence Leisure Limited (first respondent) and Shelleys Hotel (Messina Properties Limited) (later amended to Messina Properties Limited) (second respondent). Neither respondents filed a response. On 13 March 2021, Messina Properties Limited by letter stated that the claim was “crazy and dishonest” and that the company’s only connection with The Shelleys hotel was as a freeholder.[5]On 17 December 2020 Ms Mann submitted her claim against and Provence Leisure Limited (first respondent), Richmont Hotels (third respondent) and Arco Hotels Limited (fourth respondent). On 16 May 2021 Richmont Hotels Limited filed a partial response comprising of pages 1, 2 and 4 of the Response Form. It denied all knowledge of Ms Mann and stated it was a “nonsense claim”. With the exception of this partial response, Richmont Hotels Limited did not engage in these proceedings. On the 26 September 2021 Arco Hotels Limited stated in a letter that it had not been informed of the claim against it, and that it had no knowledge of Ms Mann, that it was the leasehold operator of The Shelleys hotel but did not employ any staff. The letter referred to the claim as “dishonest”. Otherwise Arco Hotels has not engaged with these proceedings nor has it submitted a response.[6]On 5 January 2021 Ms Merritt submitted her claim on 5 January 2021 against Mr N van Hoogstraten (fifth respondent) and Mr R Hamilton (sixth respondent). Neither respondent submitted a response.[7]On 1 July 2021 EJ Burke issued a Rule 21 Judgment in favour of Mr Harris and Ms Merritt, due to no response having been presented. Both cases were listed for a CVP hearing to determine remedy, together with Ms Mann’s case which was listed for a full hearing.[8]The matter came before EJ Ferguson on the 6 October 2021. Only Ms Merritt attended. Mr Harris was unable to attend due to not receiving the CVP details and not having suitable technology to access CVP. Ms Mann had attempted to join but was unable to log into the CVP. Case management directions were issued in relation to Ms Merritt. The Rule 21 Judgment in her favour was set aside, because the tribunal determined that service at the addresses provided was unlikely to come to the attention of the respondent. The tribunal added Richmont Hotels Limited and Arco Hotels Limited as respondents. The hearing was then postponed to allow service, and the cases of Mr Harris, Ms Mann and Ms Merritt were relisted together for 16 March 2022.[9]On the 13 July 2022 the parties were written to regarding the tribunal’s proposal to join the claims since they arose out of the same facts and law. The parties were given an opportunity to object providing written reasons, by 27 July 2022. No objections were received by this date, and the tribunal has therefore ordered that the claims be joined in order to properly consider all three claims together. The hearing on 16 March 2022[10]All three claimants gave evidence orally in response to questions from the tribunal.[11]The claimants provided the tribunal with the following documentation:11.1 Fifteen pages provided by Mr Harris, comprising of a Schedule of Loss, two pay slips, birth certificate, P45 and P60, notice dated 10 September 2020, and post-dismissal correspondence with Mr van Hoogstraten and accounts@hamilton-hotels.co.uk.11.2 Twenty-one pages provided by Ms Mann, comprising of a Schedule of Loss, pay slips, P45, P60, offer of employment dated 15 March 2017 and undated contract, a letter of promotion dated 5 April 2019, letter dated 1 July 2020 regarding the re-opening of the hotel from “Linda”, and dismissal-related correspondence with accounts@hamilton-hotels.co.uk and grievance submitted to Richmond (sic) hotels and Arco Hotels.11.3 One page provided by Ms Merritt comprising of a Schedule of Loss. During the hearing the tribunal was provided with sight of Ms Mann’s on-line bank account for 2018 on her mobile phone, which identified Richmont Hotels Limited as the payer of her salary.[12]A Companies House search by the tribunal identified the following relevant information (in summary form):12.1 Provence Leisure Limited (company number 08596605) was incorporated on 4 July 2013 and dissolved on 21 September 2021. The registered office address was 8 Third Avenue, Hove. The business was identified as “Hotels and similar accommodation” and “human resources provision and management of human resources functions”. The only officers were Mr Claude Le Jeune (Secretary) and Mr Andre Le Jeune (Director).12.2 Messina Properties Limited (company number 06996083) was incorporated on 20 August 2009. The registered office address was Hamilton House, 14 The Drive, Hove. The business was “Other letting and operating of own or leased real estate”. Throughout the Directors were Mr Maximillian Rhett Hamilton, Mr Alexander Sethi Hamilton, Mr Richmond Lewis Hamilton and Ms Britannia Eugenie Hamilton. No-one else was an officer of the company.12.3 Richmont Hotels Limited (company number 07979251) was incorporated on 7 March 2012. The registered office address was 8 Third Avenue, Hove. The business was “Hotels and similar accommodation”. Ms Linda Machera was the Director between 7 March 2012 until 4 March 2013. Her occupation was identified as “conference and banqueting manager”. Mr Cole was Secretary between 7 March 2012 and 2 February 2014 and Director from 4 March 2013 to 12 April 2019. Mr James Ulrich became Secretary on 3 February 2014 and Mr Graves became Director on 13 March 2019.12.4 Arco Hotels Limited (company number 08471495) was incorporated on 3 April 2013. The registered office address was 8 Third Avenue, Hove. The business was “Hotels and similar accommodation”. Mr Hugh Cole was Secretary and Director between 3 April 2013 and 11 April 2019. His occupation was “finance director”. He was replaced by Mr Thomas Graves on 13 March 2019, whose occupation was “commercial property management”.12.5 Hamilton Hotels Limited (company number 07402134) was incorporated on 11 October 2010. The registered office is 29 The Drive, Hove. The accounts identify that the company has been dormant since at least 2013. Ms Britannia Eugenie Hamilton, Mr Maximillian Rhett Hamilton were officers until 17 August 2015. They were replaced by Mr Phillip Brookes and Mr Paul Donnelly.[13]The information obtained from the Companies House search and the identity of the employer was discussed with the claimants as a preliminary matter. The tribunal decided that the default judgment in Mr Harris’ favour would be set aside and judgment on the identity of the employer in relation to all three claimants would be reserved. Evidence was then adduced in relation to the particular circumstances of each claimant. Claims and issues[14]The claimants confirmed at the outset that their claims were for redundancy, outstanding notice and holiday pay.[15]The issues to determine were agreed as:(1) Which, if any, of the respondents was the employer? Redundancy(2) Was redundancy the reason for the dismissal?(3) How much redundancy pay were the claimants entitled to? Notice pay(4) Do the claimants have any contractual notice entitlement?(5) If not, what statutory notice pay are the claimants entitled to?(6) What notice were the claimants given and was there any outstanding at the date of dismissal? Holiday pay(7) Do the claimants have any contractual holiday entitlement?(8) If not, what was the statutory holiday entitlement?(9) When was the holiday year?(10) What, if any, holiday had been taken in the final year? Factual findings[16]Ms Merritt started working for “The Shelleys” hotel on 4 October 1999 as a Hotel Receptionist. Mr Harris commenced employment as Kitchen Porter on the 5 December 1999. Both Mr Harris and Ms Merritt were initially employed by Mr Graham Coles (no connection to Mr Hugh Coles).[17]Over the years the hotel changed hands a number of times and in or around 2012 went into administration. It was at this point that the hotel was purchased by the family of Mr van Hoogstraten, using Messina Properties Limited. The tribunal finds that from this date Mr N van Hoogstraten was responsible for the overall management of the hotel, although there is and will be no document to confirm this. Both claimants described Mr van Hoogstraten as “owner of everything but nothing in his name”. During their employment they were directed not to refer to Mr van Hoogstraten as the owner. Ms Merritt’s and Mr Harris’ day to day line manager became Ms Linda Howard, Mr van Hoogstraten’s partner. Ms Howard reported to Mr van Hoogstraten.[18]Mr Harris and Ms Merritt referred in evidence to Mr van Hoogstaten as their “employer” and “my boss”, he was the person in charge who could “hire and fire”. Mr van Hoogstraten would regularly attend the hotel when it was first purchased and ask Ms Merritt about the business and room bookings. He would tell Ms Merritt off if there was something he did not like, for example, telling her not to leave lights on, not to open the windows, or to straighten pictures. He would also tell Mr Harris off, if he thought something was wrong and direct how to correct it, for example staff parking in the car park.[19]Mr R Hamilton, Mr van Hoogstraten’s son, would also attend the hotel, to deal with contractors and speak to Mr Harris and Ms Merritt about maintenance and building works. Mr Harris and Ms Merritt did not see him as their employer.[20]Ms Mann was employed on 15 March 2017 as a Housekeeper, she was senior to Mr Harris and Ms Merritt, and therefore in a better position to provide evidence about the management structure of the hotel. Her contract stated that her employer was “The Shelleys”. Ms Howard interviewed her for the post and was her line manager. Ms Mann confirmed that Mr van Hoogstraten would attend the hotel asking about bookings and checking everything.[21]On 5 April 2019 Ms Mann was offered promotion to General Manager by Ms Howard which she accepted. Ms Howard informed Ms Mann that she had to “pass [the promotion] through Mr van Hoogstraten to get his agreement”. Ms Mann stated that “everything had to get Mr van Hoogstraten’s agreement and be authorised by him”. In contrast Mr R Hamilton would only attend to ask questions about the building and contractors. Ms Mann confirmed that he was not involved in staffing matters in the way that Mr van Hoogstraten was.[22]As general manager, Ms Mann attended meetings with Mr van Hoogstraten, Ms Howard and Mr Hugh Cole, an accountant employed by Mr Hoogstraten. The subject matter of these meetings included staff hours, management of the accounts and payments to suppliers. Mr van Hoogstraten was the most senior person present, and Ms Howard and Mr Coles deferred to him.[23]In October 2019 Ms Mann attended a meeting with Mr van Hoogstraten, Ms Howard and Mr Cole, about changing the management structure of Provence Leisure Limited, due to the resignation of Mr Cole and his assistant. Mr van Hoogstraten decided that Ms Howard and Ms Mann should take over the administration of the accounts. Ms Mann and Ms Howard attended 3-4 meetings with Mr Cole, but Ms Mann did not feel comfortable about taking on this role and so she ultimately declined.[24]In March 2020, the hotel was closed during the first COVID-19 lockdown. The hotel reopened on the 15 July 2020. Ms Mann was informed of this by email from “accounts@hamilton-hotels.co.uk” dated 1 July 2020. The email was from “Linda”, “for and on behalf of Hamilton Hotels”. By this point Ms Howard was based in Hove.[25]On 10 September 2021 all three claimants were given written notice of termination of their contract; their last day of work was 10 October 2021. The letter was signed by Ms Howard on behalf of “The Shelleys Hotel”. The reason provided was that the hotel was to close from the 3 October 2020 to 1 March 2021 due to financial restraints caused by COVID-19.[26]On the 3 October 2020, Ms Mann wrote to Ms Valentina Hera at “accounts@hamilton-hotels.co.uk” seeking redundancy pay, on her own behalf and other hotel staff. Ms Hera responded that she did not know what Ms Mann was referring to, that the hotel had been closed since March and that she had no knowledge of redundancy. Ms Mann submitted a formal complaint addressed to Arco Hotels Limited, Richmond Hotels Limited and Accounts, but received no response.[27]Following his dismissal Mr Harris wrote to Mr van Hoogstraten enquiring about the payment of redundancy pay. Mr Harris stated that he “enjoyed working for you”, referring to Mr van Hoogstraten, and being “grateful for the opportunities I had to improve myself”. On 23 October 2020 Ms Salmon, Private Secretary to Mr van Hoogstraten, responded confirming that hotel had been purchased by the family of Mr van Hoogstraten 7 or 8 years ago but denying that the family had been involved as leaseholder or operator of the hotel. On 30 October 2020, Mr Welch, on behalf of Mr Harris, emailed “accounts@hamilton-hotels.co.uk” seeking payment, but the response received was “Hi Tom, another email from a guy that worked in Shelleys …”.[28]Following their dismissal the claimants submitted claims to the tribunal.[29]On the basis of the evidence provided by the claimants regarding the companies registered with Companies House, the tribunal finds that:29.1 Provence Leisure Limited was being used as a payroll company. It was the name used on the P60 that Mr Harris had provided and the P45s. Ms Mann referred to it as being responsible for administration like Quickbooks. None of the claimants had heard of the two officers: Mr Claude Le Jeune and Mr Andre Le Jeune.29.2 Messina Properties Limited owned “The Shelleys” hotel but had no involvement in its management. This was confirmed by Ms Salmon in her letter dated 23 October 2020. All the directors of the company were the children of Mr van Hoogstraten. The only Director that the claimants had any dealings with was Mr R Hamilton.29.3 Richmont Hotels Limited paid the salaries. It was the payer on Ms Merritt’s and Mr Mann’s bank statements (Mr Harris could not recall who paid his wages). Ms Linda Machera, one of the directors in 2012/13, was also known as Linda Hamilton and Linda Howard (the line manager). Mr Cole, one of the directors up to 12 April 2019, was Mr van Hoogstraten’s accountant.29.4 Arco Hotels Limited was used to administer the wages and make BACS payments to third parties, but the company had no involvement in the management of the hotel. The claimants were told to say, if asked, that the hotel was owned by Arco Hotels Limited and not refer to Mr van Hoogstraten. Mr Cole was also a director of this company up to 12 April 2019. Law[30]Section 230(4) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 defines the employer as “the person by whom the employee or worker is (or where the employment has ceased, was) employed”. Beyond that the identity of the employer is a question of fact. The following guidance has been provided by Choudhury President in the case of Clark v Harney Westwood & Riegels [2021] IRLR 528 (EAT) at paragraph 52: “a. Where the only relevant material to be considered is documentary, the question as to whether A is employed by B or C is a question of law: Clifford at [7]. b. However, where (as is likely to be the case in most disputes) there is a mixture of documents and facts to consider, the question is a mixed question of law and fact. This will require a consideration of all the relevant evidence: Clifford at [7]. c. Any written agreement drawn up at the inception of the relationship will be the starting point of any analysis of the question. The Tribunal will need to inquire whether that agreement truly reflects the intentions of the parties: Bearman at [22], Autoclenz at [35]. d. If the written agreement reflecting the true intentions of the parties points to B as the employer, then any assertion that C was the employer will require consideration of whether there was a change from B to C at any point, and if so how: Bearman at [22]. Was there, for example, a novation of the agreement resulting in C (or C and B) becoming the employer? e. In determining whether B or C was the employer, it may be relevant to consider whether the parties seamlessly and consistently acted throughout the relationship as if the employer was B and not C, as this could amount to evidence of what was initially agreed: Dynasystems at [35]. 53. To that list, I would add this: documents created separately from the written agreement without A's knowledge and which purport to show that B rather than C is the employer, should be viewed with caution. The primacy of the written agreement, entered into by the parties, would be seriously undermined if hidden or undisclosed material could readily be regarded as evidence of a different intention than that reflected in the agreement.”[31]Giving the leading judgment in the Supreme Court case of AutoClenz Limited v Belcher [2011] UKSC 41, Lord Clark stated at paragraph 35 that: ‘…the relative bargaining power of the parties must be taken into account in deciding whether the terms of any written agreement in truth represent what was agreed and the true agreement will often have to be gleaned from all the circumstances of the case, of which the written agreement is only a part. This may be described as a purposive approach to the problem. If so, I am content with that description."[32]In Wittenburg v Sunset Personnel Services Limited and Others (2013) UKEATS/0019/13/JW, the EAT accepted that when considering this matter, the test was who actually was the employer rather than who carried out some functions that an employer has carried out. Functions such as payroll are often carried out by contractors and that a finding that a company carried out that function does not necessarily indicate which company is the employer.[33]Section 139 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 provides that an employee is dismissed by reason of redundancy if the dismissal is wholly or mainly attributable to the fact that their employer has ceased or intends to cease to carry on the business for the purposes of which the employee was employed by it or to carry on that business in the place where the employee was so employed. If an employee is dismissed by reason of redundancy, and has more than 2 years’ continuous service, the employer must pay a redundancy payment. The relevant statutory entitlement is to: one and a half weeks’ pay for each complete year of employment after reaching the age of 41, and one week’s pay for each complete year of employment between the ages of 22 and 40 inclusive. This is up to a maximum of 20 years’ employment.[34]If a contract contains a notice provision then an employer will be in breach of contract if they terminate it without the contractual notice to which the employee is entitled, unless the employee has committed a fundamental breach of contract which would entitle the employer to dismiss without notice. The aim of damages for breach of contract is to put the claimant in the position they would have been in had a contract been performed in accordance with its terms. If there is no notice provision in the contract, then the employee is entitled to reasonable notice. Section 86 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 provides that the minimum notice period that an employee is entitled to is: not less than one week’s pay for each year of continuous employment if the employment was more than 2 years but less than 12 years; and not less than 12 week’s pay if the employment was 12 years or more.[35]Under regulation 13 and 13A of the Working Time Regulations 1998 a worker is entitled to 5.6 weeks (28 days) annual leave including bank holidays. Under both regulations a worker is entitled to be paid in lieu of accrued but untaken holiday on termination of employment. A contract of employment may have more beneficial terms than that provided by statute, but not less.
Conclusions
[36]Identifying the true identity of the employer has not been easy in this case. The tribunal is of the view that this is deliberate. There are at least five companies and two individuals that all have a connection with “The Shelleys” hotel and with Mr van Hoogstraten, but with exception of Mr R Hamilton, the nature of the connection is obscure. All the companies are based in Hove and three have the same registered office address of 8 Third Avenue, Hove. Different names appear on the contracts, pay slips, bank accounts, P45/P60 and correspondence. The tribunal considers that the written agreements, to the extent that they exist at all, do not reflect the true intentions of the parties. Therefore the identity of the employer is a mixed question of law and fact. The tribunal takes into account that the claimants had limited bargaining power and would have little say over the names of the purported employer recorded on the documents. Further, none of the respondents have provided any proper pleaded defence to the claims, only Richmont Hotels Limited provided a response and this was partial and comprised a bare denial. Whilst Messina Properties Limited and Arco Hotels Limited have separately written to the tribunal suggesting that the claims were dishonest, they have they have not otherwise engaged with these proceedings nor have they submitted a response. None of the respondents attended the hearing to explain the true nature of the employment relationship. On the other hand, the claimants have attended and provided clear and consistent evidence as to who acted as their employer since the hotel was purchased by the family of Mr van Hoogstraten in or around 2012/13. The tribunal therefore adopts a purposive approach, and takes into account all the circumstances in order to identify the employer/s in this case.[37]The tribunal considered carefully whether Provence Leisure Limited could be the employer. It was identified as the employer on Mr Harris’ P45 for the year ending 5 April 2020 and P60 dated 22 October 2020, and was involved in accountancyrelated administration such as Quickbooks. On the other hand its name does not appear on any contract, payslips, bank statements or letters. Further the tribunal notes that none of the claimants had heard of the two directors nor had any dealings with them. Ms Mann’s evidence suggests that there was some connection with Mr van Hoogstraten and Mr Coles, but the nature of this connection was unclear. In the absence of any evidence to suggest that this company carried out the functions of an employer, other than to administer the payroll, the tribunal concludes it was not the employer. This conclusion is supported by the fact that on the Companies House register, one of its stated businesses was “human resources provision and management of human resources functions”.[38]The tribunal does not find that Messina Properties Limited was the employer and therefore the claim against it is dismissed. This is because the nature of the company’s business is identified as “Other letting and operating of own or leased real estate”. The stated nature of the business is consistent with what is known of the involvement of this company with “The Shelleys” hotel. Although the company owned the hotel, there is no evidence to suggest that it was involved in the running of the hotel or the employment of its staff.[39]The tribunal does not find that Mr R Hamilton was the employer and therefore the claim against him is dismissed. This is because there is no evidence to suggest that he acted in any other capacity than being responsible for the maintenance of the premises.[40]The tribunal does not find that Arco Hotels Limited was the employer and the claim against it is dismissed. According to the claimants the only role it carried out was the payment of wages and payments to third parties. It was the name the claimants were directed to use if asked who owned the hotel. However, its name does not appear on any contract, pay slip, bank statement or P45, or any correspondence. Mr Cole was clearly connected to the company, but his role was that of Mr van Hoogstraten’s accountant not that of employer. The mere fact that a company carries out one of the functions of an employer, does not make it an employer.[41]The tribunal considered whether Hamilton Hotels Limited was the employer. This company had not been identified as the respondent by any of the claimants. The tribunal considered this option because in the email dated 1 July 2020 informing Ms Mann about re-opening the hotel, Ms Howard’s stated that she was the was acting “for and on behalf of Hamilton Hotels”. The email was sent from “accounts@hamilton-hotels.co.uk”, and this was the email address that both Ms Mann and Mr Harris used to enquire about redundancy pay. However Companies House register records that this company has been dormant for many years, it therefore cannot have been the employer. The tribunal considers that Hamilton Hotels was merely the name used on the email account, presumably with the intention of concealing the true identity of the employer.[42]The tribunal considered whether “The Shelleys” hotel was the employer. This entity had also not been identified as the employer by any of the claimants. The tribunal considered this option because “The Shelleys” was identified as the employer on Ms Mann’s contract, its name was on Mr Harris’ pay slips, and the letter of dismissal dated 10 September 2020. However there was no evidence put before the tribunal to suggest that it was anything other than the name of the place where the claimants worked.[43]The tribunal finds that Mr van Hoogstraten, acting in a personal capacity and / or trading as “The Shelleys” hotel, was the most likely to have been the employer. In reaching this decision the tribunal has taken into account that:43.1 Mr Harris and Ms Merritt were initially employed by Mr Graham Coles in 1999, however the hotel had subsequently changed hands and he was no longer their employer. Therefore the contract that the first and third claimants were provided with in 1999, does not assist in ascertaining the true identity of the employer at the date of dismissal.43.2 Even if Mr Harris and Ms Merritt had been provided with an updated contract, it is unlikely that it would have identified the true employer. The contract provided to Ms Mann identified “The Shelleys” as her employer, but the tribunal has seen and heard no evidence to suggest that this is anything other than the name of the place where she worked.43.3 The documentation does not consistently identify a single employer, even the identity of the payer of the wages was inconsistent, with “The Shelleys”, Richmont Hotels Limited, Arco Hotels Limited and Provence Hotels Limited all being identified in different documents. The email contact address was for accounts in Hamilton Hotels, a company that was dormant. 43.4The claimants were told to refer to Arco Hotels Limited, and not Mr van Hoogstraten, as the hotel owner. That they would be directed to say this is consistent with their evidence that Mr van Hoogstraten was the “owner of everything but nothing in his name”. 43.5 The claimants all referred to Mr van Hoogstraten as their employer. He was the person they saw as having the power to “hire and fire” and having ultimate control over the running of the hotel. Both Mr Harris and Ms Merritt gave evidence as to the nature of Mr van Hoogstraten’s involvement with the hotel. Further Ms Mann gave clear evidence of Mr Hoogstraten’s involvement in the management and staffing of the hotel. 43.6 The claimants’ oral evidence was consistent with the letter from Mr Harris to Mr van Hoogstraten following his dismissal. In this letter, Mr Harris requests redundancy pay and refers to enjoying working for Mr van Hoogstraten. 43.7 On the other hand Mr van Hoogstraten did not file any response, did not attend the hearing and has not provided any explanation as to the nature of his relationship with The Shelleys hotel and those who worked there.[44]The tribunal also finds that Richmont Hotels Limited was the employer jointly and severally with Mr Van Hoogstraten. In reaching this decision the tribunal has taken into account the close connection of this company with Mr van Hoogstraten, in particular but not limited to the following facts, that:44.1 Mr Cole, Mr van Hoogstraten’s accountant, was involved as an officer of the company until 2019. The tribunal notes that this is not determinative since Mr Cole was also director of Arco Hotels Limited, but it is one of the factors that the tribunal takes into account.44.2 Ms Howard (under the name Linda Manchera), Mr van Hoogstraten’s partner, was director of the company between 7 March 2012 until 4 March 2013, around the time the hotel was purchased by the van Hoogstraten family. Ms Howard was then appointed to run the hotel as hotel manager. Although, from this date Ms Howard was longer a director of this company, the tribunal on the evidence before it, finds that connection of this company with Mr van Hoogstraten continued through the appointment of Mr Cole as a director.44.3 Richmont Hotels Limited was identified as the payer of the salaries on the claimants’ bank statements.44.4 Richmont Hotels Limited filed a partial response to Ms Mann’s claims stating that it only employed 2 persons, did not employ anyone at “The Shelleys” hotel, and had no knowledge of Ms Mann. Ms Mann’s bank statement undermines this response since this company paid her salary. Further she had regular meetings with Mr Cole, and Ms Linda Howard / Manchera (who had been a director) was her line manager. Therefore the tribunal concludes that this company did have knowledge of Ms Mann and does not accept the response provided as factually accurate. On the information provided, and in the absence of any proper response or engagement by Richmont Hotels Limited in these proceedings, the tribunal concludes that on balance this company was also a party to the employment contract, jointly and severally with Mr van Hoogstraten. In particular it was used as the mechanism through which Mr van Hoogstraten paid his employees, and is the company most closely connected to Mr van Hoogstaten, through the involvement not just of Mr Cole but also of Ms Howard / Manchera.[45]The tribunal finds that the claimants were dismissed by reason of redundancy due to the closure of the hotel. The effective date of termination was 10 October 2021. Remedy awarded to Mr Harris (first claimant)[46]Mr Harris is entitled to statutory redundancy pay, based on 20 years of continuous service since 5 December 1999. His date of birth is 23 June 1981; therefore his redundancy pay is 4 years x ½ week’s pay plus 16 years x 1 week’s pay at £370 (gross), providing a total of £6600 (gross).[47]Mr Harris was given 4 weeks’ notice of termination of contract on 10 September 2021. He should have received a minimum notice of 12 weeks. He is therefore entitled to 8 weeks’ pay at his weekly pay of £320.26 (net), providing a total of £2562.08 (net).[48]Mr Harris claims that he was entitled to 4 weeks’ holiday a year. In fact this is less that that provided under the Working Time Regulations, therefore the tribunal finds that his real entitlement was 5.6 weeks (28 days). The holiday year ran from April to March. Therefore at the date of dismissal he is entitled to that proportion of his holiday entitlement that had accrued between 1 April and 10 October 2020, namely 15 days. He is therefore entitled to 15 days at £64.05 per day, providing a total of £960.78 (net). Remedy awarded to Ms Mann (second claimant)[49]Ms Mann is entitled to statutory redundancy pay, based on 3 years of continuous service since 12 February 2017. Her date of birth is 15 March 1962; therefore her redundancy pay is 3 years x 1.5 week’s pay at £507.70 (gross), providing a total of £2284.65 (gross).[50]Ms Mann was given 4 weeks’ notice of termination of contract on 10 September 2021. She should have received a minimum notice of 12 weeks. She is therefore entitled to 8 weeks’ pay at her weekly pay of £399.70 (net), providing a total of £3197.60 (net).[51]Ms Mann’s contact provides that she was entitled to 28 days holiday a year. The holiday year ran from April to March. Therefore at the date of dismissal she is entitled to that proportion of her holiday entitlement that had accrued between 1 April and 10 October 2020, namely 15 days. She is therefore entitled to 15 days at £79.94 (net) per day, providing a total of £1199.10 (net). Remedy awarded to Ms Merritt (third claimant)[52]Ms Merritt is entitled to statutory redundancy pay, based on 21 years of continuous service since 4 October 1999, capped at the statutory maximum of 20 years. Her date of birth is 21 September 1940; therefore her redundancy pay is 20 years x 1.5 week’s pay at £322.64 (gross), providing a total of £9,679.20 (gross).[53]Ms Merritt was given 4 weeks’ notice of termination of contract on 10 September 2021. She should have received a minimum notice of 12 weeks. She is therefore entitled to 8 weeks’ pay at her weekly pay of £306.49 (net), providing a total of £2451.92 (net).[54]Ms Merritt claims that she was entitled to 4 weeks holiday a year. In fact this is less that that provided under the Working Time Regulations, therefore the tribunal finds that her real entitlement was 5.6 weeks (28 days). The holiday year ran from April to March. Therefore at the date of dismissal Ms Merritt is entitled to that proportion of her holiday entitlement that had accrued between 1 April and 10 October 2020, namely 15 days. She is therefore entitled to 15 days at £61.30 per day, providing a total of £919.50 (net).